Coalitions of arguments: A tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks

International Journal of Intelligent Systems

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 83-109

  Cayrol, Claudette ^a   Lagasquie Schiex, Marie Christine ^a  

^a IRIT   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARGUMENTATION FRAMEWORKS; BIPOLAR ARGUMENTATION;

EID: 73849097675     PISSN: 08848173     EISSN: 1098111X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/int.20389     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Krause P, Ambler S, Elvang M, Fox J. A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Comput Intell 1995;11(1): 113-131.
2. Prakken H, Vreeswijk G. Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Gabbay D, Guenthner F, editors. Handbook of philosophical logic. Kluwer Academic: Boston, MA; 2002. Vol 4, pp 218-319.
3. Amgoud L, Maudet N, Parsons S. Arguments, dialogue and negotiation. In Horn W, editor. Proceedings of the 14th ECAI (European Conference of Artifical Intelligence), Berlin, Germany; 2000. pp 338-342.
4. Karacapilidis N, Papadias D. Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Inform Syst 2001;26(4): 259-277.
5. Verheij B. Deflog: on the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions. J Logic Comput 2003;13: 319-346.
6. Dung PM. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif Intell 1995;77: 321-357.
7. Cayrol C, Lagasquie-Schiex M-C. Gradual valuation for bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo L, editor, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU), Barcelona, Spain. LNAI Vol. 3571, Springer-Verlag: Berlin; 2005. pp 366-377.
8. Cayrol C, Lagasquie-Schiex M-C. On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo L, editor, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU), Barcelona, Spain. LNAI Vol 3571. Springer-Verlag: Berlin; 2005. pp 378-389.
9. Amgoud L, Cayrol C, Lagasquie-Schiex M-C. On the bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. In: Delgrande J, Schaub T, editors. In Proceedings of the 10th NMR Workshop (Non-Monotonic Reasoning), Uncertainty Framework Subworkshop, Whistler, BC, Canada; 2004. pp 1-9.
10. Wigmore JH. The science of judicial proof as given by logic, psychology, and general experience, and illustrated judicial trials. Little, Brown and Co.: Boston, MA; 1937.
11. Yoshimi J. Mapping the structure of debate. Informal Logic 2004;24(1).
12. Berge C. Graphs and hypergraphs. North-Holland Mathematical Library. North-Holland: Amesterdam; 1973.
13. Moon J, Moser L. On cliques in graphs. Israel J Math 1965;3: 23-28.
14. Nielsen J. On the number of maximal independent sets in a graph. Tech. Rep. RS 02-15. Center for Basic Research in Computer Science (BRICS), April 2002.
15. Doutre S, Mengin J. Preferred extensions of argumentation frameworks: computation and query answering. In: Gore ALR, Nipkow T, editors. In: IJCAR 2001, LNAI Vol 2083. Springer-Verlag: Berlin; 2001. pp 272-288.
16. Bochman A. Collective argumentation and disjunctive programming. J Logic Comput 2003;13(3): 405-428.
17. Nielsen S, Parsons S. A generalization of Dung's abstract framework for argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS Vol 4766. Springer: Berlin; 2006. pp 54-73.
18. Dang V, Jennings N. Generating coalition structures with finite bound from the optimal guarantees. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS); 2004. pp 564-571.
19. Amgoud L. Towards a formal model for task allocation via coalition formation. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS); 2005. pp 1185-1186.